North Dakota fracking boom: the cost is yet to come

I came face to face with the North Dakota oil boom after about an hour of waiting at the airport in Minot for a taxi.

There is clearly a crucial shortage of willing taxi drivers and the one that eventually turned up appeared to be a few beavers short of his hunting quota as they might say up here. It must have been about minus 30 degrees Celsius but our man was wearing shorts and runners and seemed not to notice the weather at all as he got out to jimmy open the trunk of his minivan so we could load our cases of TV gear into the back.

'You shootin' porn?' he said when he saw the camera.

We tried to explain that we'd come to North Dakota to shoot a story for Foreign Correspondent on the fracking business and the crazy oil rush that's turning the place upside down but he wasn't interested in that or anything else for that matter and refused to engage in any more small talk of any kind on the ride into town to the Best Western hotel - the only place that had any rooms.

Like everywhere else in the parts of North Dakota that sit on the Baaken shale deposits Minot is a small town with a big problem and a shortage of taxi drivers is just the start. The place has been overrun by the biggest oil boom seen in America for a hundred years and it's all happened in just 18 months. Tens of thousands of rig workers, truck drivers and machinery operators have arrived. There's not enough housing and a critical shortage of hotel rooms, there's not enough restaurants and not enough people willing to work in them. Macdonalds is offering twice the normal hourly rate, so is Walmart, and they still can't get new staff. They just can't compete with the big money on offer elsewhere. It's the sort of problem a lot of places in a country with a national unemployment rate still hovering above 8 per cent can only dream of.

North Dakota is an unforgiving sort of place - particularly at this time of year. If you recall all those dramatic lonely snow åswept vistas and long-lingering shots of empty highways from the Cohen brothers movie 'Fargo' you'll know what I'm talking about. Now when you reach Fargo and turn east those previously lonely stretches of road are crowded with trucks and the treeless plains are peppered with towering drill rigs and rocking pump jacks. The countryside, the clichés and the quiet life have been transformed by a breakthrough process known as hydraulic fracturing - or fracking as its now widely called.

And it's not just here. The process is now underway in 34 of the 50 United States of America - and in many places pressing up against suburban and urban communities - but nowhere is fuelling this country's long-held dreams of energy independence more than North Dakota. Around here they talk of the Baaken shale oil deposit in global terms. Not just bigger than Texas 'bigger than Saudi Arabia' they reckon, way bigger.

"We're only recovering less than 10 per cent of the oil without technology now," says Gene Veeder the man in charge of job development in the nearby town of Watford City.

"Who knows whether we'll be able to get the other 90 per cent of that. But that's what's driving this is just 10 per cent of what's down there."

North Dakota has had oil booms before, in the '50s, in the 1980s, but they've never experienced anything like this. Now, thanks to the fracking process, oil companies are drilling like they've never done before. Each well now drills down through kilometres of rock and often through ground water aquifers until it reaches the shale deposits. Once there it does a 90 degree turn and drills out into the shale for kilometres more. A cocktail of chemicals, clean water and sand is then pumped into the drill hole under extremely high pressure to break up the rock and release the oil and gas.

It's a transformational technology that's brought with it jobs, money and no small amount of controversy as well and across the country there's growing concern about the environmental impact. The industry admits accidents do happen - 'nothing is without risk'. The drill holes are reinforced with a protective cement casing but pollute an aquifer once and it's gone for good. There is also mounting anecdotal evidence of health related concerns for those who live near the wells. In North Dakota and elsewhere, it's not hard to find farmers who say they've lost stock and who claim their formerly pristine creeks now bubble with a strange gas. Some also say their water has been contaminated and they can light the water that comes out of their kitchen taps. In some parts of the country, like Texas, the fracking wells are pushing up to suburban back yards. Residents complain of headaches, nausea, fatigue and worse.

Still, in all but a few cases, the industry seems unstoppable and the thirst for energy in the US is so strong that drilling for domestic oil and gas has overwhelming political support. A few weeks ago, in his state of the union speech, president Obama attracted huge applause when he said this:

"Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American made energy. Over the last three years we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. This country needs an all out strategy that develops every available source of American energy. We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly a hundred years."

And the Republicans think Barack Obama is a heretical greenie. Just last weekend Rick Santorum said he believed Obama adhered to "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology". Because, he said, the president has a "worldview that elevates the earth above man".

Most of the Republican candidates have also suggested that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency is out of control and should have its powers curtailed, particularly where it pertains to energy development.

Energy is a big issue here and oil and gas are the biggest of oil. The fracking boom has happened so fast that it's taken much of the country by surprise - and set off a cluster bomb of suburban resistance movements declaring 'not near my backyard'. Despite the obvious financial and political benefits a growing number of people are now starting to ask just what price the country is prepared to pay for it.

Michael Brissendens story for Foreign Correspondent - 'Meet the Frackers' - will be broadcast tonight on the ABC. View Michael's full profile here.

Comments (67)

hairy nosed wombat:

28 Feb 2012 4:07:17pm

I'll watch your program with keen interest, Michael. Especially as i hail from the Liverpool plains region. It seems to me that these new gas and oil extraction techniques encapsulate the great tension of our times - between the immediate desire to maximise wealth right now, and management of all resource for the long term. It seems sadly it is a tension that liberal democracy fails to be able to balance - you only get a say if you are here now. When we make these decisions, those who will be most greatly impacted aren't even alive yet.

A quick flick through the history books would suggest that if there is one thing we really struggle with as a species, it is managing resources for anything other than immediate self-interest.

ron:

29 Feb 2012 10:45:05am

But non of it matters. Ben Elton's Stark is not a fictional book but a warning of what is to come. Those of us who are lucky enough and have planned, will soon be living in another place. But don't tell anyone.

Paradise:

29 Feb 2012 11:06:15am

Neither did you. We have clean water. We used to have a clean enough world. We'll use up its beauty, its resources, its liveabililty, for what? Only if we tax and control heavily, to better enhance all our lives while funding future requirements, can we live with ourselves decently. Profiteers stink.

Steve Woodstock:

28 Feb 2012 4:14:22pm

Just watch the documentary "Gasland". People don't "say" they can set fire to the water in their taps, they actually do it, on camera, over and over again. Mining companies install and deliver water & filtration systems to people whose bores have been polluted causing all sorts of serious health problems, in the hope of keeping them quiet. The political games played by the mining companies using Patents to hide behind declaring the chemicals used in the process and the EPA's funding being reduced to curtail their investigations into the Fracking processes used mean these processes are continuing with hardly any restrictions. The mining companies are even except from the "Clean Air" bill!

We need to make sure the damage being done in the USA does NOT happen here in Qld or anywhere else in Australia. Like the article says, once an aquafer is gone, it's gone for good. It can't ever be clean again. EVER. Cheap gas is no trade off for clean water. The rest of the flora and fauna on the planet can't use cheap gas, but they can't live without clean air & water. Nor can we.

emma peel:

Joe Blow:

28 Feb 2012 11:19:17pm

Gasland has only been "debunked" by those who don't want to believe that there's a problem. I've read the debunking and also Josh Fox answering the critics. As with most things, the issues have some subtleties but a thinking person can work through those, as long as they haven't already made their mind up before they start of course.

Pieter:

29 Feb 2012 11:57:12am

As far as I can make out Biogenic means produced from biological processes, i.e. the rotting of plant and animal matter to create oil and gas is a biogenic process. Thermogenic seems to be related food supplements for fat burning (as in slimming).

Drilling has never produced gas and never will. Drilling is only uised to access gas (ore oil) trapped under a cap rock. The problem arises when as a result of drilling or fracking cracks appear in the cap rock allowing the gas and other hydrocarbons to migrate to the surface, polluting acquifiers along the way.

james g:

29 Feb 2012 12:35:37pm

Driller, this Fracking process rates up there with global warming. It's a dangerous process with catastrohic consequences that'll take hundreds of years to reverse. Life ends without clean water. Is this argument too difficult for you to comprehend?

sencit:

29 Feb 2012 1:05:59pm

Driller, do you by any chance claim to unbiased. Can anybody, anywhere, give an assurance that Fracking will not, can not, pollute the artesian basins, that water will not be affected by it. No scientist can nor would do it. And please don't use the word Scientist for the hired guns the Miners like quoting

jack mcbride:

28 Feb 2012 8:56:30pm

...yeah...like in 1920 they knew so much because the science was so advanced...back then they had surgeries in hospitals as well, knowing what you know now, would you like a 1920's style of major operation or a 2012 style of operation? And the Congress of the day must have been filled to the brim with scientific minds too...ya dreamin'...Congress has nearly always been swayed by lobby groups from the vested interests. Fracking may or may not be an answer to our current energy source problems, however, the risks have yet to be fully understood and realised, and until they are, why not err on the side of caution. If it's a choice between drinking water or gas, what would you really chose?

magoo:

28 Feb 2012 4:23:03pm

The only way to stop the flow of money to the Islamic terrorists is to cut off the west's dependency on oil. So this new energy source is going to be good for that reason if for no other economic benefit.

If we could kerb our energy use this type of industrial extraction would not be needed for another hundred years, but having lived through several winters in the north of the USA I know just how much heating you need in homes and cars.

Our own gas extraction industry is tiny by comparison to the scale of what is happening in the USA, not to say we don't have comparable reserves.

Kerry:

28 Feb 2012 5:39:39pm

I must say I am impressed with your fishing ability. To spin a line that far and to completely change direction of the story from the possible consequences of fracking on the aquifers and groundwater to saving us from Islamic terrorists (presumably US of A's good allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as the West largest suppliers) is outstanding, even from the far right.

Raskul:

GRF:

28 Feb 2012 4:50:06pm

The gas in the water supply is of course methane released by fracture lines meeting the water table; which is to be expected given the intrinsically unpredicatable nature of the fracturing process. Not only is it destructive to aquifiers, but CH4 is a powerful green-house gas with fugitive release an inevitable accompanyment.

The flip-side of the coin is that economic growth is dependent on cheap fossil fuel, and fertiliser to feed 7 billion people is dependent on CH4. The human race is caught in a bind from which there is no escape. Perhaps global warming can save us; paradoxically by destroying us before we completely destroy life on earth. I wonder how many people realise that run-away green-house heating is not a theory? It actually happened on the planet Venus.

As for the poor local; one probably cannot blame him for thinking you were doing a porn-shoot if you turned up with a camera and stated talking about fracking.

emma peel:

28 Feb 2012 4:50:59pm

So where will this end, lot's of shale oil and no water? I have very serious concerns over this but as always the big end of town will win.Australia needs to address the laws on mining, legal rights of landholders to disallow access on farmlands, areas of high conservation value, native title etc. We appear to be once again following the stupidity of USA. Isn't Shell about to start drilling in the Arctic too? Crazy greed.

magoo:

29 Feb 2012 10:11:00am

Crazy greed, you claim.

Crazy need, I respond.

Do you ride a bike or are you one more of the 99.9 percent who chug around the city in an urban assault vehicle? Only those of us who cycle or walk should be allowed to pass comment on energy production.

In my humble, every TV, computer or other electronic toy should only be able to be charged by pedal power or solar panel.

jack mcbride:

29 Feb 2012 11:24:09am

...I cycle nearly 99% of the time, reverting to petrol power only when I need to travel very long distances where trains won't take me...Ms Peel also has a very light footprint, and instead of mocking her in your condescending manner, maybe you should take issue with those politicians that continue to use the commodore fleet instead of cycling or walking to work. Of course myopia was one of mr Magoo's most noticable traits...

jack mcbride:

29 Feb 2012 2:34:49pm

..I was only defending Ms Peel...I agree with everything else you say...even mr Abbott's cycling habits...I was appalled that labor aborted the Solar Rebate scheme before it's previously declared end date...and to be fair to the PM, as far as i know they don't make double wide seats for bicycles...

David Nicholas:

The other point to say about North Dakota is that it is the one US state where the population is in decline, where people leave and go somewhere else.

Oil extraction in the mainland United States is now getting tricky in that simply drilling into oil reserves is no longer to be had. So when the oil shortage in the 1970s, the major oil companies took out leases in areas which had small or remote populations but where the assays by geologists showed that by using bountiful supplies of water oil and gas could be extracted to maintain supplies.

Michael went to North Dakota, but there are other locations such as in Northern Colorado on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains where oil is found in rock shale. Back then, the plan was to extract oil from the shale using forced a forced water process not unlike fracking to obtain the black gold. In the 1970s petrol was at 40 cents a gallon and the oil crisis was sending the US price to 99cents and places over a dollar.

At that time the extraction process was expensive but the climbing prices at the pump a profitable investment. It was dependent on drawing from a large water supply. In this case it was the Colorado River. The Colorado supplies water to the arid west to such cities as Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

Fracking did not become an issue at the time; this was because the price of oil has not begun to drop and so extracting oil from the shale became unprofitable. Oil companies shit down their operations.

Now with the US price of petrol is around USD $4 a gallon, fracking is the process of choice in this area. Both Eagle and Rifle counties in Colorado are the heart of oil shale and it is now where fracking has brought the oil business back to life.

In Colorado as in many western states landowners do not own the mineral rights. This is why fracking rigs are set up right next to farm houses or anywhere they think they can get the oil.

The other point to make is that furor over fracking is about water as much as anything. Fracking depends on the water supply. Most water on the western slope is underground and lies in aquifers or water tables that are usually part of a river system. Fracking is the equivalent of sucking water through a straw, mixing it with chemicals and shooting it down to the rock seams.

The mix is brought back up and reintroduced back into the underground water table of potable water and replacing it with the fluid by-product which is what the home-dweller is left. Oh, it's water but its contaminated and is much like lighter fluid and ignites on contact when out to a flame.

This is why it has become such a fight, homeowner versus developer. So it is.

Proud thinking Australian:

28 Feb 2012 5:27:37pm

Thanks Michael,This process is set to roll out across large areas of Queensland with the same level of Labor government environmental approval that has overseen the dredging and contamination of Gladstone harbor (fish kills and damages payments to fishermen etc).It would appear that CSG environmental damage to ground water is irreversible. It is worth such a risk? Wasn't the Franklin river / dam over a much smaller footprint environmentally? Is this going completely under the environmental protest radar?

dave3:

28 Feb 2012 5:28:03pm

doing dumb things motivated by FEAR or GREED is self defeating & immature...as stated we already have evidence of the results of this practice & its shocking to say the least...too continue down this path is not only dumb its, irresponsible...u could say its a Terrorist attack on our children's children's future...no wonder there are so many people out there taking action to fight this latest insanity.

Driller:

28 Feb 2012 6:02:30pm

As Matt Ridley notes, go to google earth and look at the difference between Haiti and Dominica. one is green and the other is bare. Thats because in Haiti, the popoulation relies on biofuels (wood) whilst in Dominica the government subsidises propane (LPG bottles) so people dont have to chop down trees

The natural gas industry is the best insurance for PROTECTING local flora and fauna. A gas well that recovers say 5PJ is the energy equivalent of saving about 100,000 trees ie more trees than can be hugged by the green extremists who think wind power and solar represent some Gaian utopia

Raskul:

Pieter:

29 Feb 2012 9:32:22am

Well Driller, your future looks rosy. Of course drillers are generally known to be the most dense and radical contingent in the Oil & Gas industry. Remember that little soill in the Gulf of Mexico ? the one of North West Australia ? The mud wells in Indonesia ? You drillers have a proud tradition and record of environmental damage and vandalism.

Asia Pacific LNG needs to drill between 150 and 400 wells per annum, growing to about 10,000 wells over 30 years. Grid spacing is nominally 750 m and ranging from 500-2,000m.

Queensland Curtis LNG Needs 1,500 wells for their first train and another 1,600 wells fortrain 2. All up they need about 6,000 wells. Grid spacing is 2,884 m

Gladstone LNG needs 1,200 wells before 2015 and 1,450 over the following 20 years. My estimate of grid spacing is about 1,600 m.

Arrow Energy - I don't know but check the project impact statement if or when it is avialble.

The point is that with close to 20,000 wells required in Queensland, the pressure will be on to drill wells quickly and cheaply. To get the most out of each individual well extensive use of fracking to increase well productivity can be expected. In my view, bad well are a certainty, especially if the industry ls left to its own devices (self regulating) and can use the courts and private settlements to conceal the incidence and extent of problems. Self regulation is not an option for an industry with as poisonous a reputation as the Oil & Gas sector.

In my view the extremists are not the farmers but the energy companies and their supporters.

Ricardo K:

28 Feb 2012 6:12:05pm

Scary, huh? Imagine thinking the planet is more important than being able to boil your SUV whenever you want. Fracking is going to get us coming AND going: gas is so cheap now - more plastics and chemicals, renewables relatively more expensive. And it isn't even 'greener': apart from poisoned water, land and wildlife, if you take into account fugitive methane emissions, fracked gas could be even greenhouse gassier than brown coal.

jack mcbride:

28 Feb 2012 6:17:42pm

...the oil companies, coca cola, big pharmaceuticals, big dirt, big agriculture...none of them care about the damage they are doing to the Earth now, or what that damage may incur in the future. In fact, in speaking to a scientist who works for big dirt, I recently asked this question...is gravity equal to mass of an object?...yes, he replied...so, I asked, if we're here in Australia vapourising nearly 500million tonnes of earth per annum, will that have an effect on our mass and thus our gravity?...well, he said, I suppose after a while it might...it might, I asked, or it will?...well, one would could probably argue that at some point we would lose enough mass to in some way affect our mass, he said...how much of the earth is the planet vapourising at the moment, I asked...I don't know he said, I'm sure it's quite a bit considering...considering what?...considering how much of the world's resources we use, he said......so I personally think the AGW thingy is just part of the problem...losing our mass may have more dire consequences...once gone, gone forever...

Pieter:

29 Feb 2012 8:41:41am

Jack, gravity is not mass and the earths mass is not vapourising. You remember Einsteins E=M*c^2 formula ? To vaporise 500 million tonnes of earth in Australia would release a staggering amount of energy. We would be toast and since we are not, it (vapourising) is not happening.

Arthur:

29 Feb 2012 10:15:08am

If only gravity alteration was the major consequence.

Do you mean a change in gravity at the earth's surface that could affect how terrestrial "things" interact with the earth? Or a change in gravity that could affect the orbit of the moon and thus the tides? Or a change in gravity that might affect our position in relation to the sun?

That will be a problem for the next millenium if humans make it that far.

James Picone:

29 Feb 2012 12:57:16pm

Burning oil doesn't change the mass of the Earth system, it just changes the mass of the planet bit by shifting some of it to the atmosphere. The mass in the oil hasn't gone anywhere, it's just been rearranged into a gas - and the effect is pretty much negligible. I just did a quick estimation of how much mass in the Earth is crude oil, based off of the oil reserves listed in Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proven_oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country page (210.5 * 10^9 m^3), multiplied it by a rough value for the density of heavy crude oil (1000 kg/m^3), divide by the mass of the Earth, and you find out that it's about 3.5 * 10^-11 of the total mass - measurable, but negligible. So even if the mass of oil was just vanishing, it wouldn't change things any.

Launching probes away from Earth (not satellites - they fall back into the atmosphere and burn up) and nuclear power reduce the mass of the Earth system, but the effect is still negligible - another back-of-the-envelope based on Wikipedia data gives 10^-15 of the mass of Earth, and only a fraction of that gets converted into energy (most of it sticks around).

Ricardo K:

28 Feb 2012 6:41:28pm

Scary, huh? Imagine thinking the planet is more important than being able to boil your SUV whenever you want. Fracking is going to get us coming AND going: gas is so cheap now - more plastics and chemicals, renewables relatively more expensive. And it isn't even 'greener': apart from poisoned water, land and wildlife, if you take into account fugitive methane emissions, fracked gas could be even greenhouse gassier than brown coal.

Denis:

28 Feb 2012 6:46:49pm

Oh Magoo you've done it again!I thought the whole idea of terrorism was that it was the last resort of people who don't have tanks and aircraft i.e. no money. They are all as mad as cut snakes of course and I have no sympathy with any of their causes but really, to equate terrorism with income from mineral resources is a bit cracked (or fracked as the case may be). Will the Pilbara be the next hotbed of Jihadist foment?How about we focus on what real prople on the ground are experiencing. If a fat pay-cheque from a resource company working just over my back fence was in the offing I would be very keen to sign up and cash-in. However, if that meant that the health of my wife and kids was compromised I would definitely rethink the whole proposition. Of course you could argue that it is up to the next generation to come up with some whizo technology to cope with the fact that we have buggered the scant and scabby acres of arable land that we leave to them. But personally, I would rather not do that to my kids.At least we can call some kind of moratorium on the expansion of these technologies until we have a better understanding of the real costs and benefits.

John Robertson:

28 Feb 2012 9:44:29pm

I agree entirely with those correspondents who have pointed out that the burning gas from these Colorado taps has been evident for a century and long before 'fracking'. It is very important that drillers protect aquifers and they do. The environmental agencies rightly keep a tight watch on them.

The readiness of 'green' groups to present false facts is now notorious. One would hope that Auntie (whom I love) would do more critical thinking.

emma peel:

28 Feb 2012 10:34:42pm

Thanks again, did watch the show and disturbing as I expected. Why are these companies allowed to do as they like? no different here, just the fields aren't as big, damage will be though once The Great Artesian Basin is affected- artesian water can be thousands of years old.Just recently near here, Iluka are about finished with mining their mineral sands at Kanagulk near Balmoral. Now it has come to the fore- they are about to dump thorium and other nasties as part of their repatriation program to finish off the mines life. This mine is right next to The Glenelg River. time to stop all this rot. Same as Alcoa whinging and the power subsidies they receive and all the waste . Is it really worth it all.

glenn gowan:

28 Feb 2012 11:07:28pm

What a great report. There seem to be very genuine concerns as to how damaging this whole process will be. The almighty dollar chasers as per usual care nothing for the health and well-being of people and the planet. One assumes their viewpoint is " make more money and be damned. I won't be here to be affected" It is critical that info like this be brought to the attention of Australian policy makers and pressure brought to bear so that we don't just witness another cash grab in this wonderful country of ours.

bunyip:

james g:

28 Feb 2012 11:11:59pm

Michael, after watching your report, I went on line to examine the extent of this industry in Australia. The numbers of producers and their locations is extremely disturbing, given their proximity to farming and crop production. Seeing the serious repercussions involved in this industry and the reactions of authorities by choosing to ignore them astounded me. My first thought was 'only in America'. My next thought after reading your article? No, not in Australia! We don't need it.We know state governments are aware of the dangers, they must be held to account. I will do my bit where possible to educate others about this unnecessary and insidious industry. I know many readers and viewers will do likewise.How about journalists forgetting about Canberra for five minutes and asking politicians questions about this industry? I would love to know what both sides in the QLD election think, given the state of this industry here.Well done.

SN:

29 Feb 2012 1:11:54pm

Nice astroturfing. The authorities don't ignore breaches. Companies which breach the rules are punished by the government and more concerning for publicly listed firms, investors. If companies can't access the resources safely in a knee jerk policy environment like Australia (Vic wind farms anyone?) investors won't put their money on the line.

Tom:

29 Feb 2012 8:04:37am

In other words the same environmental destruction that has always happened and always been ignored by the energy guzzling Americans who consume a vast percentage of the worlds oil. But now the effects are on their doorstep its suddenly an issue.

ScottBE:

29 Feb 2012 10:46:44am

Wow! Big profits for "nearly a hundred years" and to hell with the future.

Thanks for a powerful Foreign C Michael... shame to lose you from Political Editor though.

It seems to me criminal that Big Energy has more right to mine than our children have to future. With similar mining in Aus there appears little we can do to prevent a mining Co from accessing land.All this when there should be adequate incentives to develop alternative energy sources that make mining obsolete!

TF:

29 Feb 2012 12:56:59pm

I watched the footage of the man lighting his kitchen tap water and seeing it flare up in some sort of chemical flame. Heaven knows that most of us would never take a drink from that tap ever again. Short term gain is great, but like the gold mines and the oil wells, but once the commodity is consumed, the mining companies also seem to vapourise. We are only minding this planet for the next generation. The authorities that make the decisions about the fracking process and its long term safety must be on the same cruise ship that ran aground the other week.

John of WA:

SmithW:

29 Feb 2012 2:12:42pm

Both this article and the show seemed to down-play the potential dangers and other negative implications of the fracturing process.

Not only are dangerous chemicals (including biocides) used in the process but the actual deposits can contain large amounts of methane and carbon-dioxide (up to 70% on the Illawara coal seam), which are both greenhouse gases, as well as benzyne and other hydrocarbons, which are harmful to humans and volatile which increases the risk of accidental contact.

At one stage during the show I noticed a large tank of hydrogen sulphide sitting next to a well (so obviously it was being used in the process). Hydrogen sulphide is highly toxic to all living things.

Every gas well requires huge amounts of water (up to 2.5 million litres/well) and although the footprint of each well is relatively small, the need for access roads, gas piping, storage dams, etc and the fact that wells on many deposits need to be placed close together (300 - 400 metres apart) can ruin the land for almost any other use.

Communities may benefit from increased economic activity in the short term but once the wells are drilled and pipes are laid, the drillers will move on and the support industries will move on and if the surrounding farmland has been turned into gas fields, then the farmers and their support industries will probably move on as well.

Let's not even get started on what chemicals they may be pumping into the ground (big secret) and the lack of government oversight of the process and it's consequences...

iansand:

29 Feb 2012 3:14:24pm

It seems that there is a vast difference between shallow fracking (which has significant risks of polluting aquifers) and deep fracking (which doesn't). I have discovered this with a bit of research (New Scientist has had a couple of article in the last couple of months, for example).

Oddly enough, I have not seen this important distinction drawn in any article I have read in the popular press. Why not? And which of the two is happening in the Pilliga, or anywhere else in Australia.

The North Dakota stuff is shallow fracking. They should be worried, but should we be worried as well? Will we be told tonight?

Anarcho-Capitalist:

29 Feb 2012 3:27:20pm

Our aquifers are a sacred public resource and should be treated with the utmost respect.

I have seen the movie Gasland and it does provide compelling anecdotal information. However, I didn't see a single geological diagram showing how the fracking fluids travel from the bore hole to the aquifer.

I am somewhat familiar with fracking in the Bakken formation in North Dakota. The depth of the Bakken is loosely at 12,000 feet but varies in depth from place to place. (BTW No earthquakes have occurred in North Dakota.)

Fractures tend to travel around 300 feet laterally in the shale formation. This is known because this is how far apart fracking is done in the horizontal bore hole to attain maximum porosity.

However, it is next to impossible for the fractures to travel vertical upward into the potable aquifers. For one, the fracture would have to travel through bedrock formations and then travel around 10,000 feet upward.

If the fluids were to travel out sideways through the vertical bore hole, they would have to penetrate the surface casing which is cemented in place and typically installed for the first 2,000 feet. Below that the fluids would have to travel through casing. In both cases the fluids also would have to travel first through the frack string. If this were to happen, there would be a noticeable loss of pressure.

No diagram or geological explanation has ever been provided that show how fractures travel to pollute aquifers, nor how they contribute to earthquakes.

So I am very suspect of this absence of diagrammatic, geological evidence while there remains this ongoing rhetorical assault on fracking.

Finally, it should be noted that potable aquifer contamination can occur, simply by drilling vertical water wells - not just oil wells - if the casing is not properly installed.